You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under
chapter 552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 138997.

The City of Amarillo (the "city") received a request for "documents relating to any
disciplinary action or reprimands against Amarillo Police Department personnel or other city
personnel involved in [a particular] wrongful arrest." You claim that responsive documents
relating to two police officers and to a dispatcher, generated as a result of an internal affairs
investigation, are excepted from disclosure under sections 552.101 and 552.102 of the
Government Code. We have considered the exceptions you claim and reviewed the
submitted information.

Section 552.102 of the Government Code protects "information in a personnel file, the
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
Section 552.101 excepts from disclosure "information deemed confidential by law, either
constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." The protection of section 552.102 is the
same as that of the common law right to privacy under section 552.101. Hubert v. Harte-Hanks Texas Newspapers, 652 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. App.--Austin 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
Information may be withheld from the public under the common law right of privacy
when (1) it is highly intimate and embarrassing such that its release would be highly
objectionable to a person of ordinary sensibilities and (2) there is no legitimate public interest
in its disclosure. Industrial Found. v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd, 540 S.W.2d 668, 685 (Tex.
1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977); Open Records Decision No. 611 at 1 (1992).
However, because the work behavior of an employee and the conditions for his continued
employment are matters of legitimate public interest, the common law right of privacy does
not protect facts about a public employee's misconduct on the job or complaints made about
his performance. See Open Records Decision Nos. 438 (1986), 230 (1979), 219 (1978). We
therefore conclude that the responsive information concerning the dispatcher is not excluded
under section 552.101 in conjunction with a right of privacy, or under section 552.102.

Section 552.101 also encompasses information protected by other statutes. You assert that
responsive information related to the subject police officers is confidential under
section 143.089 of the Local Government Code. In relevant part that statute reads:

(a) The director or the director's designee shall maintain a personnel file on each fire
fighter and police officer. The personnel file must contain any letter,
memorandum, or document relating to:

(1) a commendation, congratulation, or honor bestowed on the fire fighter or
police officer by a member of the public or by the employing
department for an action, duty, or activity that relates to the person's
official duties;

(2) any misconduct by the fire fighter or police officer if the letter,
memorandum, or document is from the employing department and if
the misconduct resulted in disciplinary action by the employing
department in accordance with this chapter; and

(3) the periodic evaluation of the fire fighter or police officer by a supervisor.

(b) A letter, memorandum or document relating to alleged misconduct by the fire
fighter or police officer may not be placed in the person's personnel file if the
employing department determines that there is insufficient evidence to
substantiate the charge of misconduct.

(c) A letter, memorandum, or document relating to disciplinary action taken against
the fire fighter or police officer or to alleged misconduct by the fire fighter or
police officer that is placed in the person's personnel file as provided by
subsection (a)(2) shall be removed from the employee's file if the
commission finds that:

(1) the disciplinary action was taken without just cause; or

(2) the charge of misconduct was not supported by sufficient evidence.

(g) A fire or police department may maintain a personnel file on a fire fighter or

police officer employed by the department for the department's use, but the
department may not release any information contained in the department file to
any agency or person requesting information relating to a fire fighter or police
officer. The department shall refer to the director or the director's designee a
person or agency that requests information that is maintained in the fire fighter's
or police officer's personnel file.

Section (a)(2) of this statute requires information that relates to misconduct by a police
officer that resulted in disciplinary action taken in accordance with chapter 143 of the Local
Government Code, to be included in the officer's personnel file, and thus to be subject to
public disclosure. Disciplinary actions specified under chapter 143 of the Local Government
Code are: removal, suspension, demotion, and uncompensated duty. Local Gov't Code
§§ 143.051, 143.054, 143.055. You inform this office that the subject officers received
letters of reprimand. You indicate that no further action was taken against these officers.
We conclude that, in this case, no "disciplinary action," as that term is contemplated under
chapter 143 of the Local Government Code, resulted from the complaint.

Because the complaints against the police officers did not result in disciplinary actions, these
complaint files cannot be held in the officers' section 143.089(a) personnel files. Local
Gov't Code § 143.089(b), (c)(2). The information is therefore maintained pursuant to
section 143.089(g) of the Local Government Code. The court determined that
section 143.089(g) makes confidential any records kept in a department's internal file. City
of San Antonio, 851 S.W.2d at 946 (in construing section 143.089 the court found general
legislative policy that allegations of misconduct against police officers and fire fighters not
be subject to compelled disclosure unless they have been substantiated and resulted in
disciplinary action). Having reviewed the submitted information, we agree that you must
withhold the officers' compliant files under section 552.101 in conjunction with
section 143.089(g) of the Local Government Code.

In conclusion, the information relating to the police officers is made confidential by statute
and must be withheld under section 552.101 of the Government Code. The information
relating to the dispatcher is not made confidential by statute, nor by common law privacy,
and must therefore be released.

This letter ruling is limited to the particular records at issue in this request and limited to the
facts as presented to us; therefore, this ruling must not be relied upon as a previous
determination regarding any other records or any other circumstances.

This ruling triggers important deadlines regarding the rights and responsibilities of the
governmental body and of the requestor. For example, governmental bodies are prohibited
from asking the attorney general to reconsider this ruling. Gov't Code § 552.301(f). If the
governmental body wants to challenge this ruling, the governmental body must appeal by
filing suit in Travis County within 30 calendar days. Id. § 552.324(b). In order to get the full
benefit of such an appeal, the governmental body must file suit within 10 calendar days.Id. § 552.353(b)(3), (c). If the governmental body does not appeal this ruling and the governmental body does not comply with it, then both the requestor and the attorney
general have the right to file suit against the governmental body to enforce this ruling.
Id. § 552.321(a).

If this ruling requires the governmental body to release all or part of the requested
information, the governmental body is responsible for taking the next step. Based on the
statute, the attorney general expects that, within 10 calendar days of this ruling, the
governmental body will do one of the following three things: 1) release the public
records; 2) notify the requestor of the exact day, time, and place that copies of the records
will be provided or that the records can be inspected; or 3) notify the requestor of the
governmental body's intent to challenge this letter ruling in court. If the governmental body
fails to do one of these three things within 10 calendar days of this ruling, then the requestor
should report that failure to the attorney general's Open Government Hotline, toll free,
at 877/673-6839. The requestor may also file a complaint with the district or county
attorney. Id. § 552.3215(e).

If this ruling requires or permits the governmental body to withhold all or some of the
requested information, the requestor can appeal that decision by suing the governmental
body. Id. § 552.321(a); Texas Department of Public Safety v. Gilbreath, 842 S.W.2d 408,411 (Tex. App.-Austin 1992, no writ).

If the governmental body, the requestor, or any other person has questions or comments
about this ruling, they may contact our office. Although there is no statutory deadline for
contacting us, the attorney general prefers to receive any comments within 10 calendar days
of the date of this ruling.